In
his article "Planetary Economics and Ecologies" (June 1988), Fred G.
Van Dyke defends the popular neo-Malthusian fable by suggesting that it should
provide the paradigm for a theological understanding of the environment. The
limitations of this attempt became evident in his astonishing belief that we
should take TheLimits to Growth seriously in spite of its gross
flaws-accuracies and inaccuracies aside." I understood this tolerance of
inaccuracy better when I saw that in footnote 32 he objected to my refutation,
in an earlier issue of Perspectives, of another neo-Malthusian effort. In
doing this Dr. Van Dyke quoted from my letter; of the three short passages he
used-twelve words in all-he got two wrong.

The letter to which he objects, though not
long, deals with theological and public policy issues that are at the heart of
some very real problems, both ecological and economic. It is the seriousness of
these problems that have led to the recrudescence of the Malthusianism that Dr.
Van Dyke and many others find so persuasive. His article, full of the
generalizations that permeate this literature, fails to deal with the issues I,
as well as many others, raised. It's hard to have a good conversation when one
side won't talk seriously about the source of the disagreement.

For readers of Perspectives who may
wish to follow up on these and related issues from a Christian point of view, I
can suggest a new book: Marvin Olasky, Herbert Schlossberg, Pierre Berthoud and
Clark H. Pinnock, Freedom, Justice, and Hope. Toward a
Strategyfor the Poor and the Oppressed (Crossway,
1988). It comes out of a consultation held in Switzerland last year by Food for
the Hungary [sic.-ed.]Among other things this book articulates a
point of view that makes it clear why the Malthusian outlook is never going to
help either the poor or the environment.

The few quotes Dr. Van Dyke lifts from the
work of Simon and Kahn and their colleagues do nothing to make the Malthusian
philosophy more credible. Although these critics are for the most part not
Christians, I urge Perspectives readers to compare their work with the Malthusian
efforts, including those by believers, and see which comports better with a
biblical understanding of the universe.

The question is not whether we despoil the
environment on the one hand or join the Malthusian hand-wringers on the other.
That is the way Dr. Van Dyke and his friends would have us view the situation.
The question is whether we can really accept that the world God created is good
and sufficient to support us in abundance-all of us-or whether we shall have to
turn ourselves over to governing authorities who will apportion to us the
remaining resources as they see fit. (This is the survivalist mentality Dr. Van
Dyke should have focused on rather than the trivial version he mentioned.) The
latter vision is the one championed by The Limits to Growth and the works
that followed in that tradition, and it is evidently the one that Dr. Van Dyke
thinks Christians ought to support.